Laserfiche WebLink
�I I. ilFanP is <br /> N I, -.0 <br /> May 1999 <br /> r AGENC Project No:,95-012-14 If <br /> Pga a 2.of 5' r r; : � + <br /> ral ` w <br /> ' Iirimediately,upon retrieval;,the samples,we're,'tsansferred into 40'mi1PA-approved VOA vials,'' <br /> 1,r9,'' containing;.05 ml of:hydrochlonc,acid,{18%)..as,a sample pr'ese'rvative,':and were labeled. The <br /> 'i*nples were transported in a chilled container under-chain-of-custody,fo McCampbell Analytical,; <br /> Inc.;(M I)a•State of California-Departriient'of Health Services(DHS)-certified'laboratory"Sa imples'..f <br /> .,were�dnalyzed'in-accordance with: y tii <br /> • <br /> or total, etroleum h drcazbonsuantifed as stoddardEPA Method 8015. Modified f o . <br /> solvents (TPH-ss}, ' r <br /> EPA Method 8020 for' volatile.aromatics.(benzene,toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes: '• <br /> I; 1 BTEX)'and <br /> EPA Method 8010 for-volatile halocarbons (chlorinated hydrocarbons). <br /> t '^ 3.0: FINDINGS <br /> Gfound water elevation and flow direction, were determined from field data, the impact of, <br /> hydrocarbons and solvents to ground water•were quantified by laboratoryranalysis. <br /> 3.1. GROUND WATER GRADIENT AND DIRECTION . <br /> The ground water.elevations were calculated by subtracting the, measured depth to ground waiter- <br /> from <br /> aterfrom the surveyed casing elevations (Table 1). Ground water elevations were plotted and contoure& <br /> on a scaled site map. t <br /> The average relative ground'water elevation'at the site decreased.approximately 0.33 feet between <br /> pp Y <br /> the August 1998 and January 1999 sampling events. During the January.1999,sampling,'the depth <br /> ' ..to.ground;waterat the site,ranged.ftom 22.14 to;22.67 feet below�.tops:of the'well,casings <br /> The screened iniervals.in'wells MW-I and MW-2 are between 34 and 54 feet bsg, and the screened. Y' <br /> intervals in wells MW-3R; MW-4 and MW-5-are'betwe' en10 and 50 feet big; thus; ground water is <br /> 12 <br /> more than 7 feet above the tops of the'screened interval in•all five monitoring wells, and is more <br /> ;than 11, feet above the.top s-of the screened intervals of monitoring well's.MW1- and MW2. The <br /> ground water samples are'only representative of the ground water enteringthe wells duringandafter <br /> 'the purge event and therefore may not be fully representative of ground•water:;conditions at or-hear <br /> t the fop,of the saturated soil zone or capillary zone, where the greatest impact to ground water is often <br /> encountered. i <br /> •�, ' .. - _ ,. , ,,gyp t ' <br /> „ . -Advanced GeoEnironmental,Inc.'77 <br />